New Label - New Take

[PovertyRow]

OK - this is more a philosophical discussion than a CGC/Overstreet/Whomever.

 

The dropping of the Alpha Grades and the retention of the Numeric Grades on the new CGC label is something that, in my mind, is kind of exciting philosophically. And it reflects an aspect of my dislike of CGC dropping the alpha grades. It amounts to an analog vs digital war.

 

It is not unlike "future films" where names are replaced by numbers. It is also not unlike the increasing vinyl vs cd comparisons, where the vinyl aficionados swear there are qualities that are lost in a digital conversion (being a now non-performing musician that used to perform regularly, and having a decent ear, I can understand this argument.).

 

Alpha grades are a "wave", so to speak, encompassing a limiting frequency. But that frequency, although limited, acknowledges a certain reality: that there WILL be variances acceptable within a grade.

 

A digital grade is, by definition, one thing and one thing only. Digital allows no variances. And this is, I think, what really irks me about dropping the analog Alpha nomenclature.

 

If one wants to exclude alpha and stick with numeric, then they should be prepared to create a 101 point system from zero to 100, with specific qualities (be they published or unpublished) to account for that numeric attribution.

 

Otherwise, they are taking the analog and trying to convert it to digital, which is an impossibility.

 

I thank you for even reading this far.

 

Pov

 

PS - man this is a long post for me - I KNOW I shall have some typos!

[aardvark88]

Comic readers are simple minded like myself. Metro/Cgc has just adopted the metric system from 0 to 10 to update Overstreet's grading definitions. No more 1/4 or 1/8 plus or minus Ostreet nomenclature.

[Illiterati-migration]

[PovertyRow]

Comic readers are simple minded like myself. Metro/Cgc has just adopted the metric system from 0 to 10 to update Overstreet's grading definitions. No more 1/4 or 1/8 plus or minus Ostreet nomenclature.

 

I don't think this is a metric system! But DAGNABBIT, there IS no updating here! Every, and I mean EVERY, alpha grade has its counterpart in a numeric grade. This is NOT an upgrade! The exact same grades exists in alpha and numeric.

 

Why, even here when I try to espiuse a different take, do people see this as a NEW thing? It isn't!

 

Dag Dag Dag Nab Nab Nab It It It (someone call an ambulance!)

[deathlok]

..and why do you think every numeric grade has an equal numeric grade, pov?

 

because CGC conformed to OS in order to make conversion easier.

 

CGC never intended to use the alpha grades, that is why they eventually dropped them.

 

CGC is attempting to establish its own grading system, dropping the alpha.

[blowout]

If one wants to exclude alpha and stick with numeric, then they should be prepared to create a 101 point system from zero to 100, with specific qualities (be they published or unpublished) to account for that numeric attribution.

 

This is the crucial point for me. IF the totalaly numeric system is going to work, all the grades need to be explainded and quantified. At the present time CGC is just not doing that, they have vaguely stated that they are adopting the OS grading system, but its clear there are differences.

 

Where I disagree with you Pov is this part...

 

with specific qualities (be they published or unpublished)

 

For me, the grading criteria HAVE to be in print so that buyers and sellers have something to refer to and use as a grading reference. If not, how can the system possibly work?

[PovertyRow]

CGC never intended to use the alpha grades, that is why they eventually dropped them.

 

You are saying that after a few years in the biz with thousands upon thousands of comics already graded, CGC is now saying "Well, sorry folks but we just wanted to initially conform by incorporating the alpha grades but now that we have you locked in we are going to do things THIS way."???

 

As I have said, while not an avid slabbed book collector, I DO respect what CGC has done and is trying to do. But your post that CGC "never intended to use the alpha grades", considering that for these years they have, is more of a slam to CGC.

[joe_collector]

..and why do you think every numeric grade has an equal numeric grade, pov?

 

CGC conformed to OS in order to make conversion easier.

 

CGC never intended to use the alpha grades, that is why they eventually dropped them.

 

CGC is attempting to establish its own grading system, dropping the alpha.

 

CGC can kiss my....

[Illiterati-migration]

..and why do you think every numeric grade has an equal numeric grade, pov?

 

CGC conformed to OS in order to make conversion easier.

 

CGC never intended to use the alpha grades, that is why they eventually dropped them.

 

CGC is attempting to establish its own grading system, dropping the alpha.

 

CGC can kiss my....

 

Isn't it perplexing that people will pay 5,7, 10x guide for books JUST because they're CGC graded? I mean, even CGC's most ardent admirers and most blind-eyed supporters admit that the system "isn't perfect"... but damned if people aren't spending their money like it is! If it "isn't perfect", then why will people pay 10 or 15x guide for a 9.8, 9.9, or 10.0? What's the huge difference in the grades there? Isn't the only difference in the number on the label? If someone is telling me that a book is BETTER than "NM" then it had darned well BETTER be! Tell me that CGC isn't the golden goose for comic book collectors...

 

Sorry, saw the "gray area" comment in the other thread and I didn't want to pollute it with this sort of non-rah-rah talk. I know it upsets the herd.

[joe_collector]

Tell me that CGC isn't the golden goose for comic book collectors...

 

Oh it is, and the oven's on broil.

[Smokinghawk]

I'm not as passionate about this stuff as a lot of people here are.

 

I mean, the classic "alpha" grades were poorly-conceived in the first place.

 

Imagine that they hadn't become a standard in comics over the last decades, and that they were just now being contrived...

 

Can you IMAGINE the furor over a grade designated as "Good" or "Very Good", when these describe conditions that are neither?

 

I've never understood why we subscribe to a grading scale that includes "Good" or "Very Good" to describe the BOTTOM condition--a comic that is in anything BUT "good" condition.

 

The numeric scale "heals" that obvious flaw, although I agree that "Near-Mint/Mint" classifications are worth keeping.

 

Now, I *would* go along with a re-wording of the alpha scale, so that the bottom grades are designated "Poor/low/modest/fine/near-mint" or something.

 

[Illiterati-migration]

I'm not as passionate about this stuff as a lot of people here are.

 

I mean, the classic "alpha" grades were poorly-conceived in the first place.

 

Imagine that they hadn't become a standard in comics over the last decades, and that they were just now being contrived...

 

Can you IMAGINE the furor over a grade designated as "Good" or "Very Good", when these describe conditions that are neither?

 

I've never understood why we subscribe to a grading scale that includes "Good" or "Very Good" to describe the BOTTOM condition--a comic that is in anything BUT "good" condition.

 

The numeric scale "heals" that obvious flaw, although I agree that "Near-Mint/Mint" classifications are worth keeping.

 

Now, I *would* go along with a re-wording of the alpha scale, so that the bottom grades are designated "Poor/low/modest/fine/near-mint" or something.

 

In a word: "How?"

 

Why is "9.4" more descriptive to you? The numbers correlate with the alpha grades. They mean THE SAME THING. There is no great "precision" added to the grading system with the number-only policy. There is no REAL difference aside from the fact that NUMBERS happen to be more MARKETABLE right now. They are newer, and thus, people ASSUME they are BETTER. This argument is absurd. The CGC apologists (and, my apologies, but you are) want to believe that CGC is an entirely benevolent institution whose sole purpose is enhancing the comic collecting industry for everyone in it... but the CGC haters see dark forms lurking under every bed in the form of "just another" change so that CGC can further bend the comic collecting market to suit their business plan.

 

Who's right? YOU BOTH ARE.

[aardvark88]

For newbies/coinees , 2.0 or 8.0 is easier to equate to 20% = low grade or 80% = above average grade like in hi-school. 9.4 = 94% top grade condition. Anything that makes the back issue comic collecting hobby more accessible to the next generation is a good thing.

[fantastic_four]

The CGC apologists (and, my apologies, but you are) want to believe that CGC is an entirely benevolent institution whose sole purpose is enhancing the comic collecting industry for everyone in it... but the CGC haters

 

I am SICK to DEATH of this grouping of people into the "pro-CGC" and "anti-CGC" camps. You know who started this? Mr. Disinformation. Since he started characterizing people as pro-CGC or anti-CGC, a dozen or more people here latched onto it. The guy really knows how to get his hooks into people in his effort to bend opinion to a state that benefits him the most.

 

Just because a person agrees with some of CGC's policies, it doesn't necessarily mean that they agree with all of them. And just because someone DISagrees with some of CGC's policies, it doesn't mean that they DISagree with all of them.

 

My assumption is that SmokingHawk's bias is for the best grading system possible, not for or against CGC as a company. In trying to envision the best grading system possible, sometimes your opinions will coincide with CGC's, and sometimes they won't. This effort by certain forum members to stereotype others is absolutely ignorant. The world's just not that simple a place.

[drbanner]

This effort by certain forum members to stereotype others is absolutely ignorant. The world's just not that simple a place.

 

Amen to that. I agree with some of CGC's actions/policies, I disagree with others. As Khaos alluded to, I hate the price multiples, but I love getting the accurately graded books. Unfortunately, someone else is willing to pay more for them than me, but that doesn't make me automatically in the "anti-CGC" camp. I'm not a CGC cheerleader, ringleader, or bandleader (but I do know how to play piano, guitar, and trumpet!).

 

Does anyone here remember the furor that +/- and split grades (VF/NM) caused when they were first used? Shouldn't VF/NM really be VF+/NM-, or does VF/NM increase the standard deviation of the grade...i.e. it's "...somewhere better than a VF but not quite a NM..." Should we go back to Good, Fine, and Mint grades? What happens if the art of grading goes beyond a 25-point scale...do we start using VF++?

 

Like Odin says, if a numeric system will make collecting more appealing to more people and help promote the hobby, I'm all for it.

[Rip]

What happens if the art of grading goes beyond a 25-point scale...do we start using VF++?

 

 

Actually I've seen VF++ quite a few times.

I used to use it myself.

I also see NM++ and its rare but F++.

I still use split grades every once an a while like NM–/NM or VF/VF+

[drbanner]

Actually I've seen VF++ quite a few times. I used to use it myself.

 

Ah-ha, just as I suspected...

 

Finally, undeniable proof that the 25-point, alpha-based grading nomenclature is archaic. I guess PCE, Bob Overstreet, Fischler, et al., knew how to take comic book collecting out of the dark ages and into the 21st Century!

[Rip]

[fantastic_four]

Actually I've seen VF++ quite a few times.

I used to use it myself.

I also see NM++ and its rare but F++.

 

Marnin Rosenberg uses it in his expanded version of the Overstreet scale:

 

http://www.comiccollectors.net/gradestandards.php

 

Interestingly, he avoids using a grade like NM-- and instead goes with adding a plus to the split grades, so NM-- is actually VF/NM+ . I guess he was thinking something similar to what Steve was about the negativity inherent in the "minus" modifier.

[PovertyRow]

Just because a person agrees with some of CGC's policies, it doesn't necessarily mean that they agree with all of them. And just because someone DISagrees with some of CGC's policies, it doesn't mean that they DISagree with all of them.